Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Definition of a personal attack is...off

Right now these guidelines claim, in the section Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable, that a personal attack is "saying something negative about another person". That is of course utter nonsense. Not all personal attacks take the form of saying something negative about a person (threatening them or doxxing them are examples listed in this very guideline), and by and far not everything negative said about someone is a personal attack. AddWittyNameHere 03:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. As there has been no movement on this issue for over a month, I've marked the statement as disputed in the hope that it will attract more editors to this discussion. --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

- WP:NPA and WP:FOC say, "comment on content, not the contributor" - making negative comments is focusing on the contributor, not the content - it is possible to point out inappropriate behavior of editors by stating facts and citing guidelines instead of making negative comments - see WP:AGF and WP:AAGF - "In cases where you feel that someone definitely needs to be cautioned for interpersonal behavioral issues...consider citing a policy applicable to the situation, such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, or Wikipedia:Harassment and alternatively approach for administrator attention." - Epinoia (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Epinoia: If I have to warn or sanction an editor whose contributions have been poor by telling them that their editing has been below the standard required, I say something negative about them, no matter how you try to couch it. This guideline calls that a "personal attack", which is patent nonsense. Your assertion that "it is possible to point out inappropriate behavior of editors by stating facts and citing guidelines instead of making negative comments" is demonstrably untrue. "Stating facts" often involves saying something negative, sometimes unavoidably. --RexxS (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE suggests that conduct should be dealt with on user pages, which is covered by WP:UP. This page,WP:TPG, deal with article talk pages, where focusing on content applies. Part of the problem is "Talk page guidelines" sounds very generic, as if they apply to user talk as well.—Bagumba (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Not every issue where it is unavoidable to say something negative about another person is a pure conduct issue; not all conduct issues are best brought up only on user talkpages. Some issues are a mixture of content and conduct in such a way that raising the one without the other is impossible. For that matter, not everything negative said about another person is about another editor. To give two examples:

• If I use the article talkpage to explain the removal of content that at a quick glance may look reasonable, but that was part of a since-blocked editor's POV-warring campaign, I am saying something negative about that editor and commenting upon conduct. It is, however, relevant on that article's talkpage and not something I ought to raise on the blocked user's usertalk instead, and I am certainly not engaging in personal attacks.
• If I use the article talkpage of a BLP to discuss how to word said living person being convicted of fraud, which of a myriad of available references are preferable, and where in the article it makes most sense to put it, I most definitely am saying something negative about someone. I am not, however, engaging in personal attacks. AddWittyNameHere 20:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I never mentioned user talk pages. WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE fails to consider the case when multiple editors are involved. A guiding principle is that discussions should not be split over multiple pages, and it is quite normal for an uninvolved admin to step in on an article's talk page and issue warnings to more than one editor about substandard behaviour in that article or on its talk page. That will generally involve commenting negatively, but justifiably, on individuals' behaviour, and will have the added effect of acting as discouragement for other editors to join in on the behaviour. This guidance oversimplifies what a personal attack is, and consequently fails to reflect accepted practice. It needs to be revised. --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't reading it literally or from the perspective of a less experienced user. It seems the problem is that Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable tried to generally define personal attack with a single sentence, which the actual policy page Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack? doesn't even attempt to do. Perhaps this is a solution: "No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This includes:"—Bagumba (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba:: works for me. I'd keep the link to Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, of course, and for grammatical pedantry, I think it should read "These include:" (since it now refers to a plural). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Works for me as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

And for me too. AddWittyNameHere 16:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Posting notices about discussions on articles

I just suggested this guideline might be an appropriate place for a guidence being suggested at WP:VPR#Discussions about articles on Noticeboards should leave a note on the relevant talk page. Dmcq (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Section headings

I think this guideline is problematic. What if someone starts a section headed "Mangoes", a discussion develops, and then an editor says, "'Mangoes' looks weird; I'm going to change the heading to 'Political timing'". Now, maybe the discussion has drifted off to a point where "Political timing" makes sense as a heading. However, when the section was originally started, "Mangoes" made sense, and "Political timing" made no sense at all. The original posting then becomes incomprehensible. Why did Wacko Jacko make a posting about "Political timing" and then ramble on about mangoes? Effectively, people who have gone off topic are rewarded and are able to colonise the discussion. It would be better for people who have gone off on a tangent to start their own discussion with a new heading, rather than taking over Wacko Jacko's section. Simply because other people want to discuss political timing, does not mean that mangoes are unimportant.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

In what way is Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#New topics and headings on talk pages "problematic"? It already says

"Make a new heading for a new topic"

and

"Make the heading clear and specific as to the article topic discussed".

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the paragraph on "Section headings" under Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are talking about.

What say we replace

"It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant."

With

"It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge fragmented discussions under one heading or to split a discussion into two sections if the topic drifts."

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That would probably be better. But I don't see why this guideline exists. If this was regularly practised it would cause so many problems:

• It doesn't say not to change the heading if that changes the meaning of other posts. Many new posts are of the form: "Mangoes: Why is this important?" Changing this to "Political timing: Why is this important?" completely changes the meaning. It also changes the meaning of subsequent posts such as, "I agree" or "Reliable sources say this is important". It can be hard to see other editors' points of view and ascertain whether a change in heading affects what they said.
• It says to discuss the change with the original poster if the change is likely to be controversial. This seems to promote discussion about the discussion, Talk page talk, which is undesirable. It doesn't say you need consensus, so how is the change decided? Clearly, since it says the original poster doesn't "own" the heading, the original poster has no right of veto.
• It gives editors carte blanche to go over old posts where the original poster is uncontactable and change the headings to what they consider to be appropriate.
• It encourages fussy, bossy behaviour, interference with other people's postings, and petty disputes. Why, why, why?--Jack Upland (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

please correct me if I am wrong, but it sort of sounds like you disagree with

"Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate"

In particular you mention "interference with other people's postings" as if the header was part of the post.

I think the flaw here is in the "discuss the change with the original poster if the change is likely to be controversial" advice. That's bad advice. The change should not be controversial in the first place. Misuse of headers is rampant, and it is always appropriate to replace a one-sided header like "Definition of a personal attack is...off" with something neutral and descriptive such as "Definition of a personal attack". --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree with the guideline that the original poster doesn't "own" the heading. To a greater or lesser degree, that heading is an integral part of the post. It is contradictory to say "Don't edit other editor's comments", but do change the heading. I think recommending a discussion is problematic however you look at it. The best policy, however, is avoiding conflict, which you have done by ignoring that other heading.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Trying to fix everything on Wikipedia is like drinking out of a firehose. I only fix non-neutral headings when they are causing a problem.

As to who owns the heading, there appears to be an overwhelming consensus against doing it your way. I could be wrong, of course; an RfC would settle the question. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know whether this creates problems in articles about zoology or Renaissance drama, but in politics articles and other contentious areas, it tends to invite pointy and POV title-tweaking that's not helpful and causes its own set of problems. I think Jack Upland has identified room for improvement here. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this could create problems across the board. People use a variety of headings ranging from "Hey Yankee!" to "Definition of a personal attack is...off". These might not fit the guidelines. I've been editing almost since Wikipedia began, and I've never seen those guidelines. I don't understand how there can be an "overwhelming consensus" in favour of editing original headings if there is "Misuse of headers is rampant" and "Trying to fix everything on Wikipedia is like drinking out of a firehose". This guideline isn't being enforced. Editors have voted with their feet. This guideline is just a licence for an officious busybody to selectively change headings he or she doesn't like, thereby generating pointless conflict.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

guidance on talk page size

On the subject of how large one's user talk page can get, as far as I know, this page is the only policy or guideline page to discuss it. The current phrasing is As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions. WP:TALKCOND

I searched the archives. Unless I'm mistaken, this question has not been discussed since 2012: Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines/Archive_9#The_guideline_is_outdated_and_should_be_changed_completely.

Q. Should we increase the limit† on talk page size from 75K?
†) Yes, I'm aware it's a rule of thumb and not a hard limit.

The benefit of of an increase would be to ease enforcement. It is incredibly hard in cases where a user has a much too large talk page to argue "you need to trim it to 75K". "75K??" they say, "that's nothing!".

Remember..

The Rule of Thumb

You might think "but how about letting the editor off the hook if they reduce it to 100K or 200K..." but that just suggests the number is out of date. I mean, if we have a guideline or rule of thumb, what it specifies is really the only reasonable target. What's the point of bothering users to follow our guideline, and then not having the guideline as the target? (And if you want to argue "but don't bother the user then", you're really arguing for the limit to be increased or removed altogether).

Mostly to focus our discussions, how about I offer a specific change suggestion.

Proposal: Change the following sentence

from

As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions.

to

As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 150 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions.

Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm very leery of participating in a discussion that speaks of "enforcement" and "letting users off the hook" in the context of something so trivial as talk page size. EEng 17:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the editor kindly gave DGG two weeks to take care of things. Of course, DGG and you, EEng, are the worst offenders, haha. You doing alright? I was going to leave a note on your talk page but my laptop would crash! ;) Drmies (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm down to 400K. And as everyone knows it's the images that count, not the text. EEng 17:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Mea culpa! Drmies (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to rephrase the start of the discussion, User:EEng. Even better, feel free to start a new talk section where you raise the issue in your own words, and I'll close this one. Let us not derail into discussing decorum. CapnZapp (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I deliberately retain closed discussions which I think to be of continuing general interest , and many people have been appreciative of this. But it is currently too long--I think perhaps half the size would be much more practical. : The excess size of my page is because I have not kept up-to-date in removing those that are no longer of general interest or have been superseded by other discussions, or in removing those which the intent was not to keep them once they were closed-- the need to remove old material is to focus on the important current material. The need to keep the page within limits is to facilitate using the contents. I One possible solution for this I might consider is hatting discussions, to reduce the rendered size in the browser. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, DGG , you're so sweet in your innocence. Hatting has absolutely zero (read: ZERO) effect on bandwidth usage, load times, memory usage, processor cycles, or anything else whatsoever -- other than the amount of scrolling someone has to do to get to the bottom of the page. EEng 01:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

User:DGG I will be much more comfortable discussing issues pertaining to your talk page on your talk page. Let this discussion be about the general "rule of thumb" that we then apply equally to everybody. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

As most of the guidance on article size at WP:SIZESPLIT seems to be applicable to talk pages as well, increasing the recommended size limit before archiving clearly runs counter to most of the considerations we already endorse. Consequently, I think it would be better to change this guidance to:

As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 50 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions.

Optionally, we could re-use the ranges suggested on SIZESPLIT to present more nuanced guidance here. --RexxS (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Any change here should also deal with a requirement that users have a talk page, and keep relevant material on it long enough to be discussed. I recognize this will invovle a much larger change. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• WP:CREEP. SIZESPLIT is for articles and is motivated by almost completely different reasons (besides, in the end, being hopelessly cookie-cutter even for articles). I continue to find it incredible that people are focused on the text size of the wikisource, which is nothing compared to even a single image on a page. For article talk pages, I suppose we could suggest that resolved (or unresolved but stale) discussions should be archived sooner or later when they're no longer useful for e.g. the edification of later visitors (whenever that is), and particularly if there are several of them. If that means human judgment is needed, and sometimes leaves multiple large discussions and a large page overall, so be it.
  For user talk pages, let's see the evidence that there's a significant problem that needs solving, much less one that needs solving via some mindless rule. EEng 21:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

RexxS

As a counter-argument, most of the rationale behind SIZESPLIT revolves around a human reader's limited capacity for long articles. An editor's capacity for a long talk page I would think is only distantly related - for one thing, your business on a talkie seldom involves more than a single section at a time. CapnZapp (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

DGG

Short counter-argument: no, I'm simply discussing if 75K remains appropriate in this day and age?

Longer: You need to have to be much more specific, DGG, about what you mean by "a requirement that users have a talk page" and "keep relevant material on it long enough", or your comment will likely not be understood and maybe even disregarded. It's not that I have to explain to you that you're free to split up a very long page into several user talk subpages of manageable size. Or that the subject of an archived talk section can be "re-opened" simply by starting a new talk section to resume the discussion. Cheers! CapnZapp (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

User:EEng What is your specific suggestion? That we remove any numeric rule of thumb entirely? Just chiming in to call the current phrasing "mindless" is not constructive. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fine with removing the number entirely. EEng 21:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Did you actually read SIZESPLIT? "SIZESPLIT is for articles and is motivated by almost completely different reasons" – that's patently untrue. SIZESPLIT gives five considerations:

1. time to read the page – there is no evidence that readers can read talk pages any quicker than articles, so the guidance applies equally;
2. some users have a low speed service – there is no evidence that users' service speed increases on talk pages and slows down for articles, so the guidance applies equally;
3. some users have unstable connections – there is no evidence that users connection stability is greater on talk pages than articles, so the guidance applies equally;
4. some users have a pay per kilobyte service – there is no evidence that users' service gets cheaper for talk pages than articles, so the guidance applies equally;
5. some users may access Wikipedia through a mobile phone or smartphone whose browsers might truncate long pages – there is no evidence that smartphone browsers truncate less on talk pages than on articles, so the guidance applies equally;

How do you square those with your assertion "motivated by almost completely different reasons"? That really is well off the mark.

@CapnZapp: Even though readers may often read one section or thread of a talk page per visit, it is just as likely that readers may often read just one section of an article. In fact our statistics show that a significant number of visits to an article are brief, suggesting the reader only looks up a single fact before moving on. Your assertion that "most of the rationale behind SIZESPLIT revolves around a human reader's limited capacity for long articles" is clearly false, as most of the rationale behind SIZESPLIT revolves around other factors, and I've demonstrated that by quoting the five considerations given in SIZESPLIT. Why not address the actual guidance there, rather than making up your objections to it? --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

SIZESPLIT is indeed about articles and issues about their size related to reading and navigating them; one sentence offers some questionable claims about unstable connections and so on. Find evidence that significant numbers of editors have browsers that truncate long pages and then we'll talk. EEng 01:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with your summary of SIZESPLIT as being about five equally important criteria, User:RexxS. It's about readability, and then also that "some users" have technical issues. More importantly, SIZESPLIT concerns article space, not talk space, so if you want to be a stickler for procedure, which I think you need to be to argue there are five equally important criteria, then it is also true that none of the five criteria are relevant at all. Anyway, arguing whether SIZESPLIT applies only muddles the issue, stealing away focus from the question asked here. You are certainly free to argue for a 50 kB rule of thumb, no need to involve SIZESPLIT, and it has been noted. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: "questionable claims" only in your opinion. SIZESPLIT has project-wide consensus, and there is no indication that the five factors there apply any less to talk pages than to articles. You find evidence that those factors affecting articles don't affect talk pages and then your opinion might be worth listening to.

@CapnZapp: I disagree with your contention that the five factors are not of equal importance. For any given reader, one or another may be the most important; it's no help being the world's fastest reader if you can't get a connection to the article you're trying to read. It's not just about readability. The factors raised in SIZESPLIT go right to the heart of this question, and SIZESPLIT has project-wide consensus that it contains useful guidance. Those factors are clearly relevant when discussing the present question, and must carry far more weight when trying to reach a conclusion on the best figure to use for guidance than your suggestion which seems to be a figure plucked out of thin air, with no rationale behind it. --RexxS (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

SIZESPLIT has project-wide consensus – That's odd, because right at the top it says it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

The handwringing about truncation and so on was added in 2011 with no discussion at all. Even, generously, assuming that that was in fact a realistic issue at that time, I renew my call for evidence that it remains an issue ten years later. EEng 17:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It was a problem in Firefox 3,[1] and Firefox 3 is still listed in the mw:Compatibility#Browser support matrix. (Inclusion is generally determined by a certain percentage of traffic.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Note: At this time, I extended an invitation to the Village Pump for more input. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm happy with retaining the present rule of thumb, but would emphasize that it is simply a rule of thumb, not something that should be enforced on anyone. I would also note that there seems to be some confusion above. The proposal doesn't seem to be about talk space, but user talk space, which is seen as a partial exception to WP:OWN. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the guideline does not separate between user talk and regular talk, and the rule of thumb therefore applies equally to both. Please tell me if I'm wrong (since the language explaining this could then probably be improved). Having separate guidelines would of course be one reasonable argument to make... CapnZapp (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

As for "it is simply a rule of thumb, not something that should be enforced on anyone" I consider that a separate second issue. When we have agreed on a number (or not to have a number etc) I plan on asking what a "rule of thumb" means (in a separate talk page section), unless someone beats me to it of course. Let's just not discuss it here intermixed with my original question above, please. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

"Rule of thumb" is a perfectly normal English phrase, not something that requires an idiosyncratic definition on Wikipedia. It being a rule of thumb there is no material difference between 75K and 150K. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If you want, we could set up a second talk section right now. CapnZapp (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Why on Earth would I want that? As I said, "rule of thumb" is a perfectly normal English phrase that already has a standard meaning. Why should Wikipedia editors give it a different meaning? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Then you will have no problems answering my questions over here, Phil: #Rule of thumb. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No, by all means let's not intermix one misbegotten, pointless discussion with another misbegotten, pointless discussion. Pointless discussions should proceed in an orderly fashion. EEng 11:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Seriously? SERIOUSLY??? You're inviting people from VP (policy) to talk about whether 50K or 75K is a better number for a limit no one pays attention to so as to better address an urgent problem for which there's no evidence of an actual problem? EEng 11:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Given that I usually delete messages from my main user talk page once I have read them (I treat my talk page as being similar to voicemail)... and thus rarely (if ever) get close to any arbitrary “limit”... anyone who goes over the limit can hereby have my “extra” unused KBs. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  Now see, that's what Wikipedia is all about: people helping people. EEng 12:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Uhm...expand size - 5g is coming, internet speed is increasing. Oh, and add anchors to sections so they're easier to find. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'd rather see talk pages reverse chronology so I don't have to scroll through all the old crud on the excessively long pages. Other than that, 25kb/75kb/1mb, as long as you aren't takes minutes to load, shrug Slywriter (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  ^^^ THIS. When can we change this to be in line with how the rest of the world works? Levivich (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  Lev, see how I get the creative juices flowing with a simple comment? That must be why they call it a "Talk page". ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  We shouldn't be trying to do what the rest of the world does, but what is best for Wikipedia. For example, the rest of the world does not create the world's foremost encyclopedia, or follow our basic content policies. I see the forward chronology of talk pages both as obviously logical, and as something to be praised. People should look at previous discussions on talk and user talk pages before commenting themselves, rather than risk continual repetition. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  I do not find that argument persuasive. When people go to a user's talk page to start a new discussion, they press the + or "new discussion" button at the top. They don't read the whole talk page. If anything, putting the most-recent discussion at the top of the talk page will increase the chances that a new visitor to the page will read it and avoid repetition. Talk pages come in two flavors: (1) those that aren't archived, which nobody is going to read because they're too long, and (2) those that are archived, and few editors will read through someone's archives before staring a new thread–even a keyword search is more effort than most will put in. So, I don't think forward chronology is any kind of improvement on the reverse chronology that is the standard for just about every other type of text-based communication software ever made. There's a reason everyone uses reverse chronology: the most recent communications are the most important, and thus should be the easiest to get to (the least scrolling). If we were really in the 21st century, or even the late 20th, we would have recently-edited sections automatically moved to the top of the page. Levivich (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  Finally, something Levivich and I completely disagree on. I suggest we carry out the debate in Burma-Shave format. EEng 00:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  OK here's the Burma-Shave summary of my argument above:

  NO ONE READS
  WHEN IT'S TOO LONG
  NO ONE READS
  WHEN IT'S ALL GONE
  NEW THREADS SHOULD GO AT THE TOP
  THE OTHER WAY IS WRONG
  Burma-shave

  Rebuttal? Levivich (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  no shade at y'all, the burma shave joke is a good one generally speaking, but am I the only one getting a little bored with it? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Why? - That is, we need to ask ourselves the reason to have limits at all. From there, we can develop rules of thumb for specific cases. Some common answers to "Why" include:
  • Readability/usability by the reader
  • Edit-ability of the whole page by web browsers that may be running on slow computers
  • Time to download by people with slow or poor-quality internet connections
  • Server resources expended with each page load or cache purge

Other than readability, the 75K limit is probably lower than it needs to be. My recommendation is that any guidance other than "don't overload server or blow past Wiki-software limits" or "don't make loading and editing the page impractical for a significant portion of users" should be over-ride able by "local consensus" or for a user's own talk page, by that user. So if we decide it's 75K, but the local consensus on a particular talk page says 200K, and that's not going to cause technical problems for the server, editors, or readers, then 200K it shall be for that particular talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• The portion of the talk-page size attributable to discussion of forming a local consensus as to what the talk-page size should be – will that count toward the size limit, or will it be deductible?
• Server resources expended with each page load or cache purge – Are you joking? Am I just dreaming that it's 2020? Is it really still 1999? EEng 18:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

EEng 18:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: I wasn't joking about the server limits or more accurately, software limits. Two recent discussions where these had an impact are here and here (2nd is article-page-related). There are several Wikipedia tracking categories devoted just to listing pages affected by these limits. You can find them listed among the other tracking categories at Special:TrackingCategories. It's my understanding that some of these limits exist not because the Wikipedia servers are wimpy (they are not) but rather to make it a bit harder for someone to do a denial-of-service attack on them. I think I read that over on Meta or one of the other Wikimedia projects, but unfortunately I don't remember where. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You didn't say anything about server limits or more accurately, software limits being a relevant consideration for a possible page-size limit; you talked about Server resources expended with each page load or cache purge, which is quite different and none of our business whatsoever as editors (with the narrow exception of template editors) – see WP:PERFORMANCE. EEng 23:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

My initial choice of wording was imprecise and in retrospect, misleading and confusing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. EEng 00:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: How about we remove all specific thresholds for user talk page length per WP:CREEP. We should be worrying about article content, not policing other people's talk pages. The penalty for having a talk page that is long enough to be cumbersome is that, in the natural course of events, people who comment there will complain about it. That should be sufficient; we don't need rules and bright lines and penalties for noncompliance. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any problem with some guidance on the subject, but it seems that there are lots of busybodies around who can't see a bit of guidance for what it is, rather than an excuse to hassle people. I would prefer to do away with the busybodies, but it seems that that sort of editor has become the majority here, so maybe we should do away with the guidance so they can do their unencyclopedic busywork elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Rule of thumb

What does "rule of thumb" mean?

Specifically, does it mean a) that we can point to WP:TALKCOND to ask editors with user talk pages in far excess of (currently) 75K to trim/archive their pages? or does it mean b) that we can't do that

If b) then what is the purpose of having a "rule of thumb"? As opposed to having a well-defined policy or guideline on one hand, or having no numerical target at all on the other?

If a) then why not have the number specified be the actual target? (Much like, say, the limit of words in a tv episode, where if a summary is even 401 words it means at least some editors will put up a cleanup template) My question is: why say 75K if we allow twice as much? Why not then have the guideline say 150K? Why have a "rule of thumb" if that only means editors can disagree how much is too much? Three times as much? (225K) Five? (375K) At this point, maybe it's better to drop any numeric target at all; meaning that even if my user talk page is 1M or 10M the community won't enforce trimming? (Editors might ask me to trim it but nothing happens if I won't)

Remember, this wording "rule of thumb" has remained unchanged for years and years. It is also very non-standard in our guidelines, so I think it's about time to question the usefulness of having a numeric target that still doesn't work like all our other numeric targets.

 Note: Unlike the previous talk page section, this one is not about the actual number (whether it should be 75 bytes, 75K or 75M). You can discuss this here.

Your input is welcome. CapnZapp (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• What does "deckchairs on the Titanic" mean? EEng 14:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• If you think that someone may not be aware of this rule of thumb then of course you can point it out once politely, but it is that editor's choice whether to take any action. There is certainly no point in telling someone about it who you know already knows. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  So not binding. Thanks for replying, I did not know "rule of thumb" carried that meaning, but then again, I'm not a native English speaker. CapnZapp (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• @CapnZapp: "Rule of thumb" means that yes, you can point to TALKCOND to ask people to archive their user talk page, but also that they can reply with "no". It's there mostly as a suggested starting point for archiving article talk pages, to provide guidance for when archiving article talk pages is helpful without being overzealous, since like DGG says elsewhere, there's value to keeping closed discussions around for reference. Strictly speaking, user talk pages are a subset of talk pages as a whole, so yes, this suggestion could be considered relevant to them, but it's no more than that. And as Phil says, if they're already aware of the guideline (as EEng, for example, clearly is), there's no point in bringing it up to them, because as a rule of thumb, it's not binding. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  So not binding. Thanks for replying, I did not know "rule of thumb" carried that meaning, but then again, I'm not a native English speaker. CapnZapp (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Rule of Thumb" means "You can't make me" It's merely a phrase that allows assholes to violate rules without consequences. Either it's an enforceable rule or it's meaningless. I would remove it and say something like "Users should archive talk pages when they get too large. If a user is warned for having an unmanageably long user talk page, and refuse to comply with requests to archive it or delete old threads to bring it into compliance, they may be sanctioned with blocks until they comply". If you aren't willing to do that, there is no point in even writing a suggestion. --Jayron32 15:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for replying. It will be interesting to see what, if any, change to the wording we end up with CapnZapp (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  So in your view any guideline is worthless if not accompanied by an iron-fist enforcement mechanism guaranteeing 100% adherence? EEng 16:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Nope. Just this one. If you would like to start a discussion on the wording of another guideline, start the discussion on that guidelines talk page, and we'll see what we can do. Other guidelines may or may not need enforcement because they aren't making pages unusable. This one is, and thus needs more teeth to make it useful.--Jayron32 17:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  Your reasoning makes no sense. It would still be useful even if, despite the lack of the iron fist, it nonetheless prompted 80% or 60% or even 30% of users to keep their pages short. EEng 00:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Rather than asking random people on the internet, you'll get better, more reliable information from this online encyclopedia that anyone can edit called Wikipedia. Rule of thumb: The English phrase rule of thumb refers to a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation. It refers to an easily learned and easily applied procedure or standard, based on practical experience rather than theory. This usage of the phrase can be traced back to the seventeenth century and has been associated with various trades where quantities were measured by comparison to the width or length of a thumb. As to why we have a rule of thumb and not a specified number, see the fifth pillar ("no firm rules"). Levivich (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)